Teams: Get a team details

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely new context: the required API-key auth header and the note that values may arrive in Persian/Arabic-Indic digits, which is real behavioral information not present in the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The text is short and front-loaded, leading with the purpose before the endpoint, auth and encoding notes. The Persian-digits sentence is boilerplate that would apply to most tools in this server but is still compact.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description would ideally describe what a team record contains, but it says nothing about the returned fields. It does cover the endpoint, auth requirement and encoding caveat, and annotations cover safety, so it is adequate but leaves a notable gap for a get-details tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented (account_id, team_id) and the baseline is 3. The description adds only the digit-encoding caveat for values, and notably the schema's team_id description says 'to be updated', a copy-paste error the description does not correct.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get the details of a team in the account') plus the underlying endpoint, so an agent immediately knows this is a single-team read operation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools gapify_list_teams or gapify_update_team, so no credit for sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus gapify_list_teams (to find a team_id) or gapify_update_team. The only contextual hint is the endpoint template showing both account_id and team_id are needed, which implies a prior lookup but never states it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.